7 ms·

I made a add-on for myself to shun sites that behave in ways I don't like. It removes links to their sites from every page. It effectively removes them from the

by kgwxd 10y ago

I made a add-on for myself to shun sites that behave in ways I don't like. It removes links to their sites from every page. It effectively removes them from the internet. I think that's a way scarier scenario for a website owner than just getting their ads blocked. If the list were community driven and widely used, I think site owners would start changing their behavior. I know most people just want the content and don't care if they block a few ads but I'm sure, like me, there a good chunk of people that are fine with respecting the site owners wishes and just never going to the site (by never seeing their site mentioned ever again) since I'm not going to "pay" in any form. I did publish the Firefox add-on (desktop only) just so I could avoid having to use web-ext or temporarily install it every time I run FF. It's a complete hassle to set up and configure at the moment. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ssure/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ssure/?src=se... Edit: Source is here https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/files/browse/601156/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/files/browse/601156... in case you want to try and not worry about it doing something shady.

kaybe 10y ago
You should probably copy that comment into the description on mozilla. If I only read what is there I would not have made the connection.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  Yeah I know. Like I said, it was only originally published so I could use it without FFs stupid rules for running local add-ons. But if people dig it, I'll spruce it up. I don't want to bill it as strictly a URL hider either, although I guess I could make a version of it that just makes that specific goal easier and keep this one as a general decorator tool. I thought it might be useful for research as well but I don't really do research so I'm not sure how useful it would be.
howderek 10y ago
Consensual, transparent censorship. Interesting.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  Can't help but think about what is censorship. What role does intent place? If you're trying to inform? Entertain? Sell? Write an ad blocker you're celebrated, write an add-on that's hides divs that mention <insert political movement here>, you're a villain.
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    I think when you're the one controlling the list it's called filtering instead of censorship :)
- __jal 10y ago
  Really not that different than kill files, something comment threads still desperately need. I realize I'm well off the curve here, but I'd still love a browser killfile plug in with: - fine-grained cookie management by name/secure status/path - Make every cookie a session cookie in a given domain - "Cookie pipes": I'd like the ability to execute scripts on cookie value changes, optionally returning a new value - Javascript exec turned on/off by domain - Access to various Javascript methods controlled by domain/path I'm probably forgetting some things from a list I made a while back.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > - Javascript exec turned on/off by domain That one you can get with uMatrix, which gives you a table of Domain x {cookie, css, image, plugin, script, XHR, frame, other}. You can use this table to selectively decide what gets loaded, and what gets blocked. The default rules are, everything "first-party" (from the domain you're visiting) is allowed, but only images and CSS are allowed from any other sources. Beyond per-primary-domain overrides, you can also whitelist all or some of the content permanently in settings. I've been using it for the past year or so, and while occasionally annoying, it makes the Web a saner place to visit, and it also makes it very obvious just how much useless crap people make you download to display their site. EDIT: also, favouriting your comment for future reference. Maybe one day I get pissed enough and write the plugin you describe.
  - 10y ago
rabboRubble 10y ago
Can your add-on remove all mentions of the Kardashians, Taylor Swift, Kanye, and Bruce/Caitlin Jenner?
- barfbuttface 10y ago
  I'm going to use this to block any advertisements/PR from Apple, Google and Microsoft. Thanks OP.
  - jdironman 10y ago
    Unable to load any pages
    - barfbuttface 10y ago
      I sure hope it's not that bad!
- dest 10y ago
  check Block M, that blocks Black M content https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-m-the-black-m-block/boepfceoodkmdjmbnomnijjihbpbonjd https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-m-the-black-...
- orblivion 10y ago
  If you get no response you can safely assume the answer is yes :-P
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    After I added the rule to try i didn't see the comment :)
    - rabboRubble 10y ago
      I am on this like white on rice. TYVM! I've looked for something that does this without luck and had been toying with making it myself at some point.
dec0dedab0de 10y ago
that's awesome, I have considered doing the same thing
whatnotests 10y ago
Hey it would be swell to implement this for Chrome as well.
rabboRubble 10y ago
Started playing with your add-on. Very cool! My need is to remove annoyances like the Kardashians, but I had a thought. Eons ago, I decided to "protect" the Wikipedia page on the clitoris. There was a tasteful picture of an exposed woman, including scientific naming of all parts of the female genitalia. That page's picture was under constant assault from religious zealots who deleted the picture. I constantly returned it. Their reasoning was that having such a picture would make the page haram, not-halal, or a sin for people in developing countries. I countered that their issues with an encyclopedia were exactly that, their issues and it was their responsibility to block offending images. We should not censor the internet to the most easily offended. Why does all that story matter? Well it got me thinking you could tweak (and maybe monetize?) your add-on to remove haram, non-halal, or sinful content on the user side. The type of people that don't want to see clitoris and porn links are exactly the type that don't want to accidentally see certain content. They may even want to pay for this~~ My 2 cents.

by kgwxd 10y ago

kaybe 10y ago

You should probably copy that comment into the description on mozilla. If I only read what is there I would not have made the connection.

jasonkostempski 10y ago
Yeah I know. Like I said, it was only originally published so I could use it without FFs stupid rules for running local add-ons. But if people dig it, I'll spruce it up. I don't want to bill it as strictly a URL hider either, although I guess I could make a version of it that just makes that specific goal easier and keep this one as a general decorator tool. I thought it might be useful for research as well but I don't really do research so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

howderek 10y ago

Consensual, transparent censorship. Interesting.

bdcravens 10y ago
Can't help but think about what is censorship. What role does intent place? If you're trying to inform? Entertain? Sell? Write an ad blocker you're celebrated, write an add-on that's hides divs that mention <insert political movement here>, you're a villain.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  I think when you're the one controlling the list it's called filtering instead of censorship :)
__jal 10y ago
Really not that different than kill files, something comment threads still desperately need. I realize I'm well off the curve here, but I'd still love a browser killfile plug in with: - fine-grained cookie management by name/secure status/path - Make every cookie a session cookie in a given domain - "Cookie pipes": I'd like the ability to execute scripts on cookie value changes, optionally returning a new value - Javascript exec turned on/off by domain - Access to various Javascript methods controlled by domain/path I'm probably forgetting some things from a list I made a while back.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > - Javascript exec turned on/off by domain That one you can get with uMatrix, which gives you a table of Domain x {cookie, css, image, plugin, script, XHR, frame, other}. You can use this table to selectively decide what gets loaded, and what gets blocked. The default rules are, everything "first-party" (from the domain you're visiting) is allowed, but only images and CSS are allowed from any other sources. Beyond per-primary-domain overrides, you can also whitelist all or some of the content permanently in settings. I've been using it for the past year or so, and while occasionally annoying, it makes the Web a saner place to visit, and it also makes it very obvious just how much useless crap people make you download to display their site. EDIT: also, favouriting your comment for future reference. Maybe one day I get pissed enough and write the plugin you describe.
- 10y ago

rabboRubble 10y ago

Can your add-on remove all mentions of the Kardashians, Taylor Swift, Kanye, and Bruce/Caitlin Jenner?

barfbuttface 10y ago
I'm going to use this to block any advertisements/PR from Apple, Google and Microsoft. Thanks OP.
- jdironman 10y ago
  Unable to load any pages
  - barfbuttface 10y ago
    I sure hope it's not that bad!
dest 10y ago
check Block M, that blocks Black M content https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-m-the-black-m-block/boepfceoodkmdjmbnomnijjihbpbonjd https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-m-the-black-...
orblivion 10y ago
If you get no response you can safely assume the answer is yes :-P
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  After I added the rule to try i didn't see the comment :)
  - rabboRubble 10y ago
    I am on this like white on rice. TYVM! I've looked for something that does this without luck and had been toying with making it myself at some point.

dec0dedab0de 10y ago

that's awesome, I have considered doing the same thing

whatnotests 10y ago

Hey it would be swell to implement this for Chrome as well.

rabboRubble 10y ago

Started playing with your add-on. Very cool! My need is to remove annoyances like the Kardashians, but I had a thought. Eons ago, I decided to "protect" the Wikipedia page on the clitoris. There was a tasteful picture of an exposed woman, including scientific naming of all parts of the female genitalia. That page's picture was under constant assault from religious zealots who deleted the picture. I constantly returned it. Their reasoning was that having such a picture would make the page haram, not-halal, or a sin for people in developing countries. I countered that their issues with an encyclopedia were exactly that, their issues and it was their responsibility to block offending images. We should not censor the internet to the most easily offended. Why does all that story matter? Well it got me thinking you could tweak (and maybe monetize?) your add-on to remove haram, non-halal, or sinful content on the user side. The type of people that don't want to see clitoris and porn links are exactly the type that don't want to accidentally see certain content. They may even want to pay for this~~ My 2 cents.